Tennessee Divorce Reopened When Millionaire Farmer Husband Hid Assets
Tennessee law case summary on hidden assets in divorce and family law from the Court of Appeals.
James Glen Kirk v. Gloria Taylor Kirk – Tennessee divorce hidden assets.
The husband and wife were married in 1987. The husband ran a farming operation, and the wife worked as a mortgage broker. In 2008, the husband filed for divorce in Shelby County, Tennessee, and the divorce was granted in 2009.
Shortly after the final decree, the wife made two motions to alter or amend the final decree. In that motion, she produced a bank statement showing that the balance of the husband’s farm account was over $60,000, in contrast to the $4400 he had claimed at trial. She also produced evidence that shortly after the divorce, the husband had made a credit application in which he stated his net worth was over $1.6 million, which was $388,000 more than the husband had valued the entire marital estate a few months earlier. There were also discrepancies in the value of the husband’s crops and the use of those proceeds.
The trial court determined that this newly discovered evidence, and that the husband’s explanations were not credible. It found that the evidence clearly and convincingly established that the husband was holding and hiding assets to avoid the amount being included in the division of marital assets. Furthermore, the trial court found that the wife did not have the means to discover this concealment until after the judgment had been made.
Due to this newly discovered evidence, the trial court awarded the wife a judgment of $210,000, and also awarded attorney fees. The husband appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals first noted the standard required to re-open a judgment. There must be newly discovered evidence that was unavailable at trial and could not have been known with reasonable diligence. In light of the trial court’s analysis of the evidence, the Court of Appeals held that this standard had been met. The Court of Appeals found that the husband’s failure to disclose the information clearly fell in the category of knowing concealment.
The Court of Appeals took special note of the fact that the trial court had been in the best position to weigh the credibility of the witnesses, and had not found the husband’s explanations to be credible. It stated that the parties have a duty to provide truthful information, and that gamesmanship with respect to the truth is not appropriate.
Some of the evidence was not even discussed in the husband’s appellate brief, and the Court of Appeals could see no reason to disturb the trial court’s findings as to those issues.
Based on all of the evidence, the Court of Appeals was unable to find that the trial court had abused its discretion, and affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The Court of Appeals also found that the trial court was within its discretion with respect to awarding attorney fees, and also affirmed that portion of the judgment. The Court of Appeals also assessed the costs of appeal against the husband.
No. W2012-00451-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 6, 2013).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
For more information, see Hidden Income and Hidden Assets in Tennessee Divorces. Memphis divorce attorney, Miles Mason, Sr., practices family law exclusively and is founder of the Miles Mason Family Law Group, PLC. Buy The Tennessee Divorce Client’s Handbook: What Every Divorcing Spouse Needs to Know, available on Amazon and Kindle. To schedule your confidential consultation, call us today at (901) 683-1850.
